The court emphasizes the landlord's discretion in determining personal need and rejects tenant's appeal against eviction.
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has upheld a decree allowing landlords, Ratan Karmakar and others, to recover possession of their property from tenant Smt. Chaina Das, reinforcing the principle that landlords are the best judges of their own residential and business needs. The judgment, delivered by Justice Sugato Majumdar, emphasizes that courts should not impose their standards on landlords regarding how they should utilize their property.
The case revolved around a dispute over premises in Suri, Birbhum, where the plaintiffs, who had purchased the property in 1989 and 1991, sought eviction of the defendant on grounds of reasonable requirement for both residential and business purposes. The defendant, contesting the eviction, argued a lack of bona fide need and pointed to alternative accommodations available to the plaintiffs.
The trial court had initially dismissed the suit, questioning the habitability of the premises and the genuineness of the plaintiffs' need. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, granting the landlords a decree for recovery of possession, which the High Court has now affirmed.
Justice Majumdar, in his judgment, highlighted that the landlord's assessment of their need is paramount unless proven to be exaggerated or fanciful. He stated that the availability of alternative accommodation must be evaluated for suitability and convenience, rather than imposing arbitrary standards on the landlord's choice of residence. The court dismissed the relevance of the Advocate Commissioner's report in determining the landlord's requirement, asserting that it is the landlord's prerogative to decide the use of their property.
This ruling aligns with precedents set by the Supreme Court of India, which have consistently upheld the landlord's right to determine their own residential needs without interference from the courts. The High Court's decision mandates the appellant to vacate the premises within sixty days, failing which the respondents can initiate execution proceedings.
Bottom Line:
Landlord's reasonable requirement for possession of premises to be adjudged based on a bona fide need, and the landlord is the best judge of his own requirements.
Statutory provision(s): West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 Section 13(6), Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Section 106
Ratan Karmakar v. Smt. Chaina Das, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2838906
